Chapter 11 announced

[CynicalScouter]

1 minute ago, ParkMan said:

I've often wondered the same thing.  Seems to me that it would be in the interest to the US to take this category of organizations and give it additional oversight.  I think we all would welcome an inspector general as well to oversee the operation and youth protection programs to make sure that they are operating in the best way possible.

The Congressional Research Service did a write-up on this several years ago.

In short, the Congressional Charter is looked on as an award and an item from a bygone era. Nowadays there's a semi-firm rule AGAINST issuing new congressional charters, as the CRS report notes (Ending Charters—Maybe).

The idea is that these are meant to be independent PRIVATE entities that happen to get their business license from Congress and not, say, your state's secretary of state corporations division (where most entities are incorporated).

That said, Congress did try to yank the BSA Congressional Charter in 2000 for the Dale case (refusing to allow homosexual adult leaders in). That effort failed.

Kosnoff has asked for years for Congressional hearings on the BSA and Congress has just as consistently said no, that as far as they are concerned the Congressional Charter is, in effect, meaningless in terms of Congressional oversight. BSA is not a government entity. It is not a quasi-government entity.

As for champions in Congress, think optics. Right now, all the public knows is 95,000 sexual abuse claims against BSA. No one is going to rush in to be BSA's salvation or to try and protect BSA assets (which will then almost certainly be spun as BSA and the bad politician trying to deprive sexual abuse victims of what is due to them).

Once the bankruptcy ends and the new, "rebranded" BSA comes out, maybe. But not now.

 

[ThenNow]

4 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

As for champions in Congress, think optics. Right now, all the public knows is 95,000 sexual abuse claims against BSA. No one is going to rush in to be BSA's salvation or to try and protect BSA assets (which will then almost certainly be spun as BSA and the bad politician trying to deprive sexual abuse victims of what is due to them).

I don't necessarily, in fact literally, mean publicly. It would be beneficial even to have strategic input on things like the properties, for example. That said, in monitoring press from various local outlets, politicians, business and community leaders continue to be involved in and advocate for their constituent BSA entities. I haven't seen this wane in those specific markets. This may amount to a group of anomalies, but I assumed it was not. I have no idea if it is completely isolated and unique, I admit.

[fred8033]

44 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

My sense is that Philmont is the one HA base that works as a National Monument - though probably not a full park.

There might some argument for others such as Northern Tier as a National Recreation Area.  The Summit you just annex as part of New River Gorge NRA.

It would be a fascinating idea for the NPS to develop some sort of new youth category - be able to use places like Philmont for their intended purpose under the auspices of the ownership of the NPS.  Expand Philmont and the other main HA bases so that they can be used by any similar youth organization.  The GSUSA for example.

NTier ... The recreation area is called the BWCA.  I question the accessible cash value of the camp beyond it's current function.  I'm sure someone would acquire, but it would not be a windfall for the class action.  Sea Base would be similar.  Wonderful properties, but it would take years to convert to cash.  

[InquisitiveScouter]

1 hour ago, ThenNow said:

I couldn't afford Philmont when I was in Scouting. It would be a joy to experience it before I croak. 

You can "put your toes in the water" by trying out the Philmont Training Center first.  This is a great experience for adults, or families!  It is like a week at summer camp, but the Scouts do not work on merit badges.  They simply do age appropriate activities.  And my wife loved the spouses program...tours, shopping, and talks...

Tent living, good meals, excursions, camaraderie, clean bathrooms, activities, campfires, etc.  And the price is comparable, or cheaper, than summer camp.

You could do an intensive training program.  And, they build in plenty of family time in the curriculum.

We plan to go back to PTC.

Check it out:

https://www.philmontscoutranch.org/ptc/

[ParkMan]

1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

The Congressional Research Service did a write-up on this several years ago.

In short, the Congressional Charter is looked on as an award and an item from a bygone era. Nowadays there's a semi-firm rule AGAINST issuing new congressional charters, as the CRS report notes (Ending Charters—Maybe).

The idea is that these are meant to be independent PRIVATE entities that happen to get their business license from Congress and not, say, your state's secretary of state corporations division (where most entities are incorporated).

That said, Congress did try to yank the BSA Congressional Charter in 2000 for the Dale case (refusing to allow homosexual adult leaders in). That effort failed.

Kosnoff has asked for years for Congressional hearings on the BSA and Congress has just as consistently said no, that as far as they are concerned the Congressional Charter is, in effect, meaningless in terms of Congressional oversight. BSA is not a government entity. It is not a quasi-government entity.

As for champions in Congress, think optics. Right now, all the public knows is 95,000 sexual abuse claims against BSA. No one is going to rush in to be BSA's salvation or to try and protect BSA assets (which will then almost certainly be spun as BSA and the bad politician trying to deprive sexual abuse victims of what is due to them).

Once the bankruptcy ends and the new, "rebranded" BSA comes out, maybe. But not now.

 

Understood 100%.

In the world of optics one can be both proactive and reactive.  Yes, in a reactive sense coming to the rescue of the BSA might be a difficult thing - though I'm not sold that's so true.

Let's remember that Scouting is a 100 year old organization.  Yes, the BSA is struggling now, but many, many people benefitted from it over time.  I suspect that there is a great deal more warm feelings for the BSA than many people realize.

Putting that aside - in a proactive sense, there is a story that one could tell about how scouting is a good thing.  The argument would be that scouting today has been left unchecked and as a result has made bad choices.  Congress, by devoting some attention to it, could clean up the issues that concern people and put scouting back on the right path in the United States.  Think less "rescue the BSA" and more "rescue scouting for kids from the BSA".

America loves a redemption story.  Taking something that is motherhood and apple pie and redeeming it can be a win.  

 

[swilliams]

6 hours ago, ThenNow said:

That is the case here. The link below will take you to the insurers' Rule 2004 Discovery Motion. You can scroll to page 7 on the docket file, page 1 of the motion, and begin reading from there. Of course, this is what the insurers "allege" and the respondent groups deny many elements, especially the negative characterization. Several great news stories were written related to this internal battle, as well. 

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/870566_1975.pdf

I haven't read through this entire thread.  Has the motion in the link been ruled on?

[RememberSchiff]

CENTURY AND HARTFORD’S STATEMENT REGARDING THE RECENTLY-FILED PLAN OF REORGANIZATION AND PENDING RULE 2004 MOTIONS [DKT. NOS. 1972, 1974]

The plan of reorganization filed by the Debtors on March 1, 2021, has not garnered the support of any significant constituency in this case. To the contrary, it has already been met by intense opposition, including from the Tort Claimants’ Committee.

...The violent reaction of claimants’ counsel to the newly-filed plan shows that progress cannot occur without an investigation into the claims filed in this case. Otherwise, we fear that one of two things will occur: Either the plaintiffs’ lawyers will run roughshod over the Debtors, resulting in a proposed plan and trust distribution procedures designed to allow tens of thousands of invalid claims, which will leave the insurers with no choice but to contest confirmation, or, in Mr. Kosnoff’s words, this case will head toward liquidation.

  The discovery into the claims that Century and Hartford have requested is necessary for this case to avoid one of those fates. Absent that discovery, the mediation alone is not on a path to produce consensus. The plan and disclosure statement that the Debtors recently filed not only has generated no support, but it was not the product of meaningful negotiations. To the contrary, the first time the insurers saw the current plan and the proposed disclosure statement was on March 1, when the Debtors filed those documents. The time-sensitive discovery the insurers seek will shed light on the explosion in claims and, by allowing all parties to uncover the basic facts, hopefully pave the way toward building a semblance of consensus.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/877020_2316.pdf

Edited March 4, 2021 by RememberSchiff

[swilliams]

2 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

CENTURY AND HARTFORD’S STATEMENT REGARDINGTHE RECENTLY-FILED PLAN OF REORGANIZATION AND PENDING RULE 2004 MOTIONS [DKT. NOS. 1972, 1974]

The plan of reorganization filed by the Debtors on March 1, 2021, has not garnered the support of any significant constituency in this case. To the contrary, it has already been met by intense opposition, including from the Tort Claimants’ Committee.

...The violent reaction of claimants’ counsel to the newly-filed plan shows that progress cannot occur without an investigation into the claims filed in this case. Otherwise, we fear that one of two things will occur: Either the plaintiffs’ lawyers will run roughshod over the Debtors, resulting in a proposed plan and trust distribution procedures designed to allow tens of thousands of invalid claims, which will leave the insurers with no choice but to contest confirmation, or, in Mr. Kosnoff’s words, this case will head toward liquidation.

  The discovery into the claims that Century and Hartford have requested is necessary for this case to avoid one of those fates. Absent that discovery, the mediation alone is not on a path to produce consensus. The plan and disclosure statement that the Debtors recently filed not only has generated no support, but it was not the product of meaningful negotiations. To the contrary, the first time the insurers saw the current plan and the proposed disclosure statement was on March 1, when the Debtors filed those documents. The time-sensitive discovery the insurers seek will shed light on the explosion in claims and, by allowing all parties to uncover the basic facts, hopefully pave the way toward building a semblance of consensus.

So that sounds like a 'no' to my question.  Having followed a couple court cases on other issues (as best I can without any real legal knowledge), I'm aware that court proceedings are never quick.  Are there other issues standing in the way of the insurer's motion being denied or granted?

[skeptic]

3 hours ago, ParkMan said:

There may be some possibilities about the NRA designation - but don't know for certain.

I think back to the inclusion of many of the national battlefields.  As I understand it, that designation came into being when the NPS inherited the properties from the Army.  I'm wondering if a similar thing could occur here - call it a national youth recreation area or something like that.  You could even hire the BSA to operate it as a concessionaire.

Something on the line of how the San Diego Mission Bay youth center is run?  BSA coordinates it all, as requested by the interested youth groups and the city, or so I understand.  But it is open to a broad range of use.

 

[CynicalScouter]

21 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

CENTURY AND HARTFORD’S STATEMENT REGARDING THE RECENTLY-FILED PLAN OF REORGANIZATION AND PENDING RULE 2004 MOTIONS [DKT. NOS. 1972, 1974]

Abbreviated version:

1. We insurers hate it.
2. The abuse claimants (or at least their lawyers) hate it.
3. General public hates it.
4. The only parties that appear to like it are JPMorgan Chase and BSA and we really don't care if JPMorgan Chase likes it or not because they are not a "significant" party to the case.

So this sounds like it is going to go well.

[ThenNow]

21 minutes ago, swilliams said:

So that sounds like a 'no' to my question.  Having followed a couple court cases on other issues (as best I can without any real legal knowledge), I'm aware that court proceedings are never quick.  Are there other issues standing in the way of the insurer's motion being denied or granted?

That is correct.

The Coalition and Abused In Scouting attorneys, with others chiming in, argued there is no precedent for the court to grant this kind of motion. Insurers countered with, "unless there are unusual/extraordinary circumstances," which they and others believe to be the case. (I tend to agree, given the exponential curve in the number of claims and all the shady business that drove it.) The judge has not been thrilled with them, having "defied" her admonition against, "seeing 100's of claims signed by an attorney." Many of them did that and more.  It's possible, just like on her ruling that they could sign on behalf of clients, though she warned against it because they could be called as "fact witnesses," she may feel constrained to grant it or defer and let the fight happen down the road. Many hope she finds the will and a way to grant it now.

Edited March 4, 2021 by ThenNow

[CynicalScouter]

3 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

Insurers countered with, "unless there are unusual/extraordinary circumstances," which they and others believe to be the case. (I tend to agree, given the exponential curve in the number of claims and all the shady business that drove it.)

I also wonder if the court will kick the can down the road: sure there may have been shady claims, but we'll leave it for the Fund Trustee to figure this mess out?

[ThenNow]

7 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Abbreviated version:

1. We insurers hate it.
2. The abuse claimants (or at least their lawyers) hate it.
3. General public hates it.
4. The only parties that appear to like it are JPMorgan Chase and BSA and we really don't care if JPMorgan Chase likes it or not because they are not a "significant" party to the case.

Although not overtly stated, the Ad Hoc Committee statement seems to indicate they believe it demonstrates real "progress is being made" and all their hard work is paying off. I guess they go behind Door #4 where Carol Merrill is standing. (A familiar reference for the other old guy.)

Edited March 4, 2021 by ThenNow

[Eagle1993]

29 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

CENTURY AND HARTFORD’S STATEMENT REGARDING THE RECENTLY-FILED PLAN OF REORGANIZATION AND PENDING RULE 2004 MOTIONS [DKT. NOS. 1972, 1974]

Ummm... I'm guessing Mosby will not be on their Christmas Card list.  Wow... Century & Harford coming in hot!

Sooo ... over/under on completing bankruptcy by end of August?

[InquisitiveScouter]

2 minutes ago, ThenNow said:

I guess they go behind Door #4 where Carol Merrill

You are officially an old fart